Qe Contribution Framing

---
name: qe-contribution-framing
description: Use to sharpen the one-sentence contribution of a Quantitative Economics (QE) manuscript so a general-interest Econometric Society reader sees the quantitative payoff immediately. Frames the claim and its scope; it does not redo estimation or write full prose.
---

# Contribution Framing (qe-contribution-framing)

## When to trigger

- The "so what?" of the paper is not crisp in one sentence
- Reviewers (or co-authors) disagree about what the paper's main point actually is
- The contribution is described as a method or a dataset rather than as an answer
- The claim's scope (what it does and does not establish) is blurry

## Framing the QE contribution

QE publishes papers that **apply quantitative methods to substantive economic questions**, so the contribution should be framed as a **quantitative answer**, not as machinery. A QE-fit contribution sentence names three things: the **question**, the **quantity** you deliver (an estimate, a counterfactual, a welfare number, a measured fact), and the **lesson** that travels beyond the setting. Frame against the Econometric Society lens: if the only honest framing is "we propose a new estimator," the paper belongs at Econometrica; QE wants "using [method], we answer [question] and find [quantity], which implies [lesson]."

Match the framing to the paper type:

- **Structural/computational:** the contribution is usually a *counterfactual or welfare quantity* the model identifies, plus the credibility of the estimated parameters behind it.
- **Empirical (applied micro/finance):** the contribution is a *credibly identified magnitude* and what it teaches about the mechanism.
- **Experimental:** the contribution is a *causal quantity or parameter* the design pins down, plus its discipline on theory.
- **Simulation/measurement:** the contribution is a *newly quantified object* and the method that makes it measurable.

## Scope discipline (QE rewards calibrated claims)

State plainly what the result **does** establish (the estimand, the population, the assumptions) and what it **does not** (external validity limits, identifying assumptions that could fail, computational approximations). Because QE forbids significance asterisks and asks for standard errors and coverage sets, frame the contribution with its **uncertainty attached**, not as a point claim.

## Checklist

- [ ] One-sentence contribution names question + quantity + lesson
- [ ] The quantity (estimate / counterfactual / welfare / measured fact) is explicit and carries uncertainty
- [ ] Framed as an answer, not as "a method" or "a dataset"
- [ ] Scope stated: estimand, population, key assumptions, what is NOT claimed
- [ ] The "why QE, not Econometrica/TE" cut is visible in the framing
- [ ] No over-claiming beyond what the design/estimation supports

## Anti-patterns

- "We build a model / collect a dataset" framed as the contribution, with no answer
- A contribution sentence with no number and no scope
- Over-claiming a local estimate or a calibrated counterfactual as a universal law
- Method-first framing that really belongs at Econometrica
- Hiding identifying assumptions or computational approximations from the claim

## Output format

```
【One-sentence contribution】question + quantity + lesson
【Quantity type】estimate / counterfactual / welfare / measured fact (+ uncertainty)
【Scope — establishes】estimand / population / assumptions
【Scope — does NOT establish】[...]
【QE fit】answer-first, not method-first? [Y/N]
【Next step】qe-identification-strategy
```